Posted on 09/25/2001 4:46:13 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
There is no religious bias in the PBS Evolution Project because Ken Miller says there isn’t.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Josh Gilder
A first-hand report on the PBS Press Conference for the Evolution Project, held July 26, 2001 at the Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel in Pasadena, California
I just returned from the PBS Pasadena press tour, which opened with a press conference on their up-coming 8 hour, 7 part Evolution series, to be broadcast Sept 24-27. Others will no doubt be offering critiques of the series itself. I’ve not viewed the entire series, but from what I have seen I can say that it’s not what you’d expect. It’s worse.
Jane Goodall was there via satellite, along with series producer Richard Hutton, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott and Jim Morris, all in person. It was a lavish affair, put on with the aid of the some $14 to $25 million dollars donated to the project by Microsoft gazillioniare Paul Allen. Along with a nice press kit, we all had copies of Darwin’s Origin of the Species waiting for us on our chairs and an evolution card game (“Test your evolutionary knowledge”). Advocating Darwinism to the press is clearly preaching to the choir. Even so, the speakers took great pains to impress on us all that there is no (real) conflict between evolution and religion (Miller of course took the lead here) and any perceived conflict was simply a matter of ignorance (on the part of the public, of course). The over-riding purpose of the series, in fact, was to help people overcome their unreasonable and irrational fear that Darwinian theory somehow threatens religious belief. This naturally went unchallenged by the press core, until fellow IDer, John Reynolds, managed to waylay a live mike and ask: if so, why is the series so patently and gratuitously offensive to the religious sensibilities of the majority of the American people? Which it certainly is.
Miller jumped in to express wonderment that anyone could even think such a thing, saying he “wouldn’t have been associated [with the project] if he thought there was any bias whatsoever.” He repeated this to me even more emphatically later on. (It was a little like the joke about the guy whose wife catches him in bed with another woman, but the guy adamantly denies he’s having an affair, saying he’s never been in bed with another woman in his life. His wife points to the rather obvious evidence lying beside him. He simply repeats his denial and adds, “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!”) Miller’s role as religious mascot was clearly central to this whole enterprise. His first words were something to the effect of “I’m a believing Catholic and a believing evolutionist,” and after that, all religious issues were reconciled, as it were, in his person. He saw no bias. Therefore there could be no bias.
Just before they switched off the microphones, I was able to get in a question about the 14 to 25 million dollars donated by Paul Allen. Mr. Allen’s production company, Clear Blue Sky, not only produced the eight-hour series, but is behind a much larger project that includes an interactive website, on-line courses for teachers, a written teachers’ guide, special videos with ready-made answers to students and parents who might raise inconvenient questions about evolution, and the training of special evo-cadres (the “Lead Teacher Initiative”) to go out into the public school system and instruct other teachers exactly how to teach evolution.
I asked Richard Hutton, the producer, if it was in accordance with PBS guidelines to allow donors to produce their own series for airing on the public stations – thereby granting them effective editorial control. Hutton denied that there was anything untoward, as Clear Blue Sky was an independent production company, but when I asked if it was wholly owned by Mr. Allen he admitted it was. Hutton refused to say how much Mr. Allen had given, but said that the production of the series was in line with the costs of other series. This would leave anywhere upwards of $10 to $20 million left over, which Hutton seemed to admit was being used in preparing the educational materials and training the evo-cadres to blitz our public school systems this fall.
It was hard to follow up further as they kept turning off the mike. I did have a back and forth with Ken Miller afterwards, trying to get a little further into the bias issue. I asked why, despite liberal use in the series of evo-“experts” such as Dennett, Gould and others, no mention was made of their philosophical agenda (atheism) -- something Miller discusses at great length in his book, by the way --and that it was only critics of evolution who were portrayed as having an alternate agenda (creationism). I pointed out that Miller himself acknowledged in his book that Berlinski, for instance, was not a believer, and that Michael Behe was not a “typical” creationist. He ignored the question and launched into an attack on Behe, assuring the now large audience assembled around us that there was absolutely nothing to any of these so-called scientific critiques of Darwinism. He was so emphatic on this point that it became impossible even to respond. I was effectively shouted down and left the field.
John Reynolds, however, did get in some good points with Eugenie Scott, which I’ll let him elaborate on in his report. Interestingly, a reporter from the Washington Post came by to get John and my names. I think the funding issue may have hit a nerve.
© 2001 Josh Gilder. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 9.19.01
Great post and I absolutely agree. I believed in evolution until I read Darwin on Trial in the mid-90s. Johnson simply grinds the theory to dust.
I knew then that the theory of evolution was dead, but that it would take a long time for the news to reach the general public. Your estimate of 20 years seems about right.
The fact that the producers completely ignored former Supreme Court clerk Philip Johnson; multi-Ph.D. holding, William Dembski; the Doctors of biology, Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells; clearly demonstrates that those who believe in evolution are running scared.
William Provine, an avowed Darwininist and biologist from Cornell Univeristy, would disagree with your statement that Darwinism is only about biology. He maintains that Darwinism goes beyond fossils and mutations, and indeed consists of a comprehensive philosophy which precludes God and creation. William Provine and Phillip Johnson, "Darwinism; Science of Naturalistic Philosophy?" (videotape of debate held at Sanford University, April 30, 1994) Available from access research Network, PO Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO 80937-8069.
Darwin himself claimed that if a perfect God created us, we would have been created perfect and natural selection would be "superfluous." Thus Darwin insisted that belief in God's creation and evolution are incompatible. Since the earth was never created, it had to have always been here.Nora Barlow, ed. "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 with original ommissions restored" (New York: Norton, 1958), 87.
That argument can be turned completely upside down. Why must you believe that it was created in a literal six days? Why do you suppose if He could have, He must have? Were you their to witness creation? Why is your concept of God so limited? If God exists (and I know He does), then omniscience, omnipotence, and eternal existence are His attributes, and they are His attributes in the fullest, most complete measure. If not, then there is no God, which is a stark and utter impossibility, because what is all around us, the very fact that we exist, is proof that there is a God in heaven. Take His omnipotence as an example. If He is omnipotent, doesn't that mean He is all-powerful? He can do anything, in any way, at any time, and there are no limitations on that whatsoever. 6 literal days to create the universe? He could have done the whole thing instantaneously!
The Bible, by stating that He did in six days, must have been trying to communicate something more than just how long it physically took God to draw up plans (what with I dont know since the pencil had not yet been created), gather the resources needed (but where did they come from?) and do the physical labor required to create all that exists. Now admittedly that is silly. If God created the world, he didnt NEED six days in which to do it. He could have thought the thought and instant creation.
The fact that the Genesis story explains creation in six days and lays out the six progressive steps in the creation of the universe and Earthly life tells me that God was giving Man a description of how things began that was understandable to the nomadic sheepherders that first heard it, and is still relevant to those of us in a more scientific era.
That argument can be turned completely upside down. Why must you believe that it was created in a literal six days? Why do you suppose if He could have, He must have? Were you there to witness creation? Why is your concept of God so limited?
If God exists (and I know He does), then omniscience, omnipotence, and eternal existence are His attributes, and they are His attributes in the fullest, most complete measure. If not, then there is no God, which is a stark and utter impossibility, because what is all around us, the very fact that we exist, is proof that there is a God in heaven. Take His omnipotence as an example. If He is omnipotent, doesn't that mean He is all-powerful? He can do anything, in any way, at any time, and there are no limitations on that whatsoever. 6 literal days to create the universe? He could have done the whole thing instantaneously!
The Bible, by stating that He did in six days, must have been trying to communicate something more than just how long it physically took God to draw up plans (what with I dont know since the pencil had not yet been created), gather the resources needed (but where did they come from?) and do the physical labor required to create all that exists. Now admittedly that is silly. If God created the world, he didnt NEED six days in which to do it. He could have thought the thought and instant creation.
The fact that the Genesis story explains creation in six days and lays out the six progressive steps in the creation of the universe and Earthly life tells me that God was giving Man a description of how things began that was understandable to the nomadic sheepherders that first heard it, and is still relevant to those of us in a more scientific era. It explains God's ongoing creation of his universe over Millenia. As the universe expands, all of creation expands.
What do you call the myriad of ape-man fossils such as the Neanderthal, Java Man, etc. that show skeletal features and traits that vary between the primate family and modern man? For Creationists, no amount of proof would ever suffice. The evidence proving evolution is staring them right in the face and their response is to ignore it and conjure up ridiculous theories whose only purpose is to defend their belief in the literal interpretation of the Old Testament.
You make an attempt to discredit my question by turning it inside out, but it still doesn't answer the question, and in fact establishes my original point. The question addresses the belief by some that there is no possible way that God could have created the universe in 6 literal days. I say, why not? He could have done it instantaneously, for that matter. There is the account in Genensis that states that after each "day" of creation, God looked at it and pronounced it "good". Certainly, the day referred to might not be a literal 24 hour day. I never said that it "must" be. I am simply stating that to say that it "couldn't" be is to place limits on God, and shows an underlying lack of understanding of the concpt of God as a being, and as a Creator. I am not placing limitations on God. He can, and does, do as He wills, and we, a part of creation, have no say in the matter, and certainly no right to challenge Him about it. The only limitations on God are those He places on Himself, not for His sake, but for ours. Whether or not He created the universe in 6 literal days or not is not a matter that will have any real bearing on our standing before Him, or the state of our salvation (a subject which I'm not even addressing here, that's a whole other kettle of fish, as it were). What I fight for, and believe is the fact that in reality, it takes even more faith to believe in evolution and all it's attempts to explain by purely natural processes the coming into being and existence of life, than it does to believe that God created it all, and therefore there is a Creator with whom we must deal, and are responsible to. THAT is what evolutionists just can't bear, the idea that God has a right to impose control over, and expect us to be accountable for ourselves and the part of Creation placed in our care and use. Since we are a part of His Creation, we are beholden to Him, and He does have a right to have expectations of us.
So in your post you mentioned three scientists; Sagan, Provine, and Darwin to make your case that ALL Darwinists believe that the universe existed forever. That hardly proves that the theory of evolution itself is predicated on that belief.
Also you didnt quote any specific statements from Darwin, only your paraphrasing of what someone else later said about him.
Evolution is a not a theory about the beginning of life on earth. If you take it as that fine, thats your belief. But as far as Im concerned God created the Earth out of nothing. It sprang forth from a quantum singularity (non-space, non-time)and the universe is continuing to expand today. Similarly, life forms are continuing to adapt. Those that cant adapt, die off to make room for those that can.
And I wouldnt worry about ambiogenesis or whatever. God could have intervened in his creation at the appropriate time to create life.
And what the evolutionists don't want you to know is that many of those were hoaxes and conjecture, not fact. There is a growing body of evidence to show that Neanderthal Man is genetically the same as modern man, no different from us than Orientals are different from Caucasians or Negroes. Java Man was pure conjecture, built up from a few teeth and part of a skull, and leg bones found a distance away from the teeth and skull cap (not even a complete skull). The same with "Lucy" the so-called "mother" of us all. Not a complete skeleton of any so-called "transitional" hominids has ever been found. What you cite as "proof" is mostly conjecture, and artistic license from a biased viewpoint. There is no "proof".
Not if you have accepted the bible as fact your whole life and are later confronted with apparent contradictions in science.
It's relatively easy to instill a belief, but difficult to change it.
God is eternal and omnipresent. Therefore, God exists outside of time and space. From his perspective, creation probably was instantaneous. In the world of matter, it took longer. Some say six days. Personally I think some what longer, many millions of years. Nevertheless it was God that created the world and all that was, is, or will be in this material world. Im not stupid enough to say all that was, is, or will be because God did not create himself.
What I fight for, and believe is the fact that in reality, it takes even more faith to believe in evolution and all it's attempts to explain by purely natural processes the coming into being and existence of life, than it does to believe that God created it all, and therefore there is a Creator with whom we must deal
I think what some of us are saying is that Evolution is NOT a theory that attempts to explain how life began. It didnt start out that way and if that is what you are hearing now a days its because some are attempting to force it to explain the unexplainable.
For me, in a world with time moving in one direction, its harder to accept a universe with no beginning and no end then it is a universe that was created. The idea of an infinite number of yesterdays is staggering!
When confronted with irrefutable facts and evidence supporting evolution you say what most Creationist say...it is all a hoax, a conspiracy, bad science, blah, blah, blah. All this proves is that no matter what the evidence is, Creationists will shout it down. Tell me, what would suffice as proof of evolution in your view? Apparently our museums around the world which are stuffed with all sorts of pre-man fossils doesn't do the trick.
Yes, six days actually, with a day of rest following. I can't tell you for sure how long a "day" was in Genesis, but I have read commentaries that state that the Greek word used in the passage is meant to convey a 24-hour day. (There are other verses in the Bible where the word signifying "day" means a different length of time.) I certainly believe that God is able to create whatever he wants, instantly if he so chooses. We cannot understand the mysteries of God, which is where faith comes in.
...with all of the species and humans as we know them? dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans, didn't they?
God created a mature man and woman...and mature animals (not infants). It seems reasonable that he would therefore create a mature earth, with it's oil reserves and other resources in place, and even some proof of continents moving great distances. No one knows for sure when dinosaurs actually exisited (dating by strata or "carbon dating" is problematic). There are some verses in the Bible (Job) which describe creatures that we would call "dinosaurs", they apparently existed before the great flood. Perhaps the different world that emerged post-flood led to their extinction ?
I can't say that I believe you must believe in a literal six days to be a Christian. I would never put that on anyone. But I am going to tell you why I stopped challenging the literal six days. I'm going to presume that you are an evolutionary Christian. If you aren't please forgive the assumption and still read the post. I was like you once. I believed G-d created the universe and He used evolution as His way to get us to where we are now. Then someone asked me, "If you challenge that part of the Bible, how do you choose which parts to believe?"
He had me stumped. The Bible says that homosexuality is not normal. Science tells us it is. Which do I believe? The Bible says that humanity is born with an evil inclination. Science tells us that man is born good. Which do I believe? Ultimately I came to notice that every time someone said something like, "The Bible may say that, but what it really means is..." to me, this person was looking for a way to avoid taking G-d seriously, not looking for a way to understand G-d and His creation better. This may not be true for you, but it was true for most, and I have to admit it was true for me. In other words, I came to realize that I was challenging the six day creation in order to be able to challenge the Bible in areas where it spoke more directly to my life. I came to the decision point in my life, and I chose.
I believe the Bible is the true and inerrant Word of God in everything it says. When the Bible seems to be in conflict with Science, I will patiently wait for Science to figure out where it went wrong.
Please don't take this as an attack on you. I don't even know you. But I do know me. If there is something here for you, accept it. If not, just scroll on by.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.